A paradox inside Newtonian world

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomaz Kristan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Newtonian Paradox
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a paradox in Newtonian mechanics concerning gravitational forces and the behavior of masses. Participants debate the calculations and assumptions regarding how gravitational forces act on a system of masses arranged in a specific configuration. Key points include the assertion that the net force on certain masses is directed leftward, while others argue that the center of mass may not actually move left due to the dynamics of the system over time. The conversation highlights the complexities of infinite mass distributions and the implications for conservation laws in physics. Ultimately, the paradox challenges traditional interpretations of gravitational interactions in a Newtonian framework.
  • #481
The honesty is the only tool required, as that lady said.

And a little bit of knowledge about limits also. To see that the left side force is always finite here.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #482
The force, to every ball, from its left side is smaller, than if it was, if all the masses on the left were concentrated at the point, where only the nearest left ball is.

This way the mass of the nearest left ball would be only doubled and the left force would be double as much, as it is now, from this nearest ball alone.

The way it is described at the post #1, it's only 992/1000 as much.

It's just trivial to see this.
 
  • #483
Wakalixes.

Would you mind please explaining what in my last calculation was wrong exactly?
 
  • #484
Where is your error?

The every next ball in the row is not ever closer. Their distancies go as 1.0d, 1.1d, 1.11d, 1.111d ... and so on.

I can't imagine, you didn't know this.
 
  • #485
there is also another way of approximating this, that should become more accurate as n goes to infinity.

if you merely define a desnity function that represents the distribution continuously (would the op be opposed to this?)

you can write the gravitational field as being equal to -G int[1,0] den(x) dx/x^2

which is found by finding the contribution to the total field by any infinitesimal segment of mass.

I tried doing this with the density function as e^-x (because the calculations involving this exponential function are easier) and quickly found that the integral is divergent, as you end up with ln(0) in a number of the terms, as the divergent natural log appeared due to the division by x and not the exponential I think that its safe to infer that any exponential distribution will result in a divergent gravitational field.

thus the situation is unphysical and mathematically undefinable, and so is not worth talking about.

but things like this happen quite often when working in Newtonian gravity, just try and calculate the amount of energy that a particle gains when it falls into a point mass.
 
  • #486
This is ridiculous. Almost "how many angels" stuff.

Tomaz, if you start with a physically imposible situation, it doesn't matter what physical model you use to evolve it, it will always remain a physically impossible situation.

My reaction to your 'paradox' - very amusing, so what ? It means nothing.

Stop wasting your time with these fantasies and study the real thing - GR cosmology.
 
Last edited:
  • #487
Luke,

I don't give any guaranties to my example changed in any way. A modification still may be no good (what's the whole intent), but I stand only behind my construction.

Here, it's not the infinite amount of energy, what is the problem. It's the rebellion against the Third Law of Newton.

The bastard between Cantor's Infinity hotel and the Newtonian mechanics is the ugly one. The paradox. No matter of good advices I get.
 
  • #488
Tomaz Kristan said:
The every next ball in the row is not ever closer. Their distancies go as 1.0d, 1.1d, 1.11d, 1.111d ... and so on.

I can't imagine, you didn't know this.
My calculation considered the left force on every ball due mearly to the ball to its immediate left. If this sum is divergent, then the overall left force sum, which you yourself "proved" is "greater", is also a divergent sum. PLease read the argument again.
 
  • #489
ObsessiveMathsFreak said:
My calculation considered the left force on every ball due mearly to the ball to its immediate left.

This is one reason, why your calculation is wrong.


ObsessiveMathsFreak said:
If this sum is divergent

Means nothing. The sum of all forces between various parts of a rigid body can easily be divergent. So what?
 
  • #490
Tomaz Kristan said:
Means nothing. The sum of all forces between various parts of a rigid body can easily be divergent. So what?
So you've been claiming for dozens of pages that the sum of all of the forces converges.
 
  • #491
The sum of all the forces, to every ball is finite, yes. Negative, but finite.
 
  • #492
Tomaz Kristan said:
The sum of all the forces, to every ball is finite, yes. Negative, but finite.
And the sum of all the forces on all the balls is infinite. This has been proven twice now. Frankly, you're trolling at this point.
 
  • #493
> And the sum of all the forces on all the balls is infinite.

The sum of all forces on all balls doesn't count. You can tile a cube to have the same "effect" of the "infinite sum of all forces".

It is not I who trolls here, OMF.

What only matters is:

The sum of all the forces, to every ball is finite, yes. Negative, but finite.

Now, if that's not true, is the only question.
 
  • #494
Tomaz Kristan said:
The sum of all the forces, to every ball is finite, yes. Negative, but finite.
To every individual ball. Look this would go a lot faster if you bothered to do some calculations.
 
  • #495
Calculation

The right side force to mass point m is:

(G*m*m/2)/(d*d)+(G*m*m/4)/(d*d*1.1*1.1)+...+... = (0.992*G*m*m)/(d*d)

What else do you need?
 
  • #496
Tomaz Kristan said:
The right side force to mass point m is:

(G*m*m/2)/(d*d)+(G*m*m/4)/(d*d*1.1*1.1)+...+... = (0.992*G*m*m)/(d*d)

What else do you need?

What you have written there is what, this?:

\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac{Gm^2}{2^{i+1} d^{2} \sum_{j=0}^{i} 10^{-j} }= \frac{0.922 Gm^2}{d^2}

Im just turning your ...'s into sums.
 
Last edited:
  • #497
Looks quite good to me.
 
  • #498
but its not right. Left side approaches zero.
 
  • #499
The left side is quite weak, but I don't care. At least not more than for the OMF's calculation somewhere above.

But the right side is correct and that's enough.
 
  • #500
how is it correct? i was just putting what you said into calculable terms. How did you get that number, please show the math.
 
  • #501
I repeat myself:

>> (G*m*m/2)/(d*d)+(G*m*m/4)/(d*d*1.1*1.1)+(G*m*m/8)/(d*d*1.11*1.11)+...+... = (0.992*G*m*m)/(d*d)

It's trivial to see that.
 
  • #502
Even

(G*m*m/2)/(d*d)+(G*m*m/4)/(d*d*1.1*1.1)+(G*m*m/8)/(d*d*1.11*1.11)+...+... < G*m*m/(d*d)

would be quite enough. The left side force is finite. Also always exceeds the right side force.

No more is needed, no fancy math can change this strange fact. :cool:
 
  • #503
Tomaz Kristan said:
Am I wrong or not? What's your say?

- Thomas

Thomaz. The mathematians, physicists and engineers have answered your question. They have answered it more than fully, in many different ways, in a 34 page thread. You choose not to listen. So what do you actually want??
 
  • #504
BillJx said:
Thomaz. The mathematians, physicists and engineers have answered your question.

Good! What was the answer?

Was it ... that a finite force is affecting every ball? All pointed to the left? At least at t=0?

:smile:
 
  • #505
Tomaz Kristan said:
Was it ... that a finite force is affecting every ball? All pointed to the left? At least at t=0?
We knew that from the very beginning. Your paradox concerns the force on the center of mass. Could you give your proof that this force is also finite.
 
  • #506
I don't care for the mass center. I care only for the mass particles.

I am glad that you agree with me about those.

> Could you give your proof that this force is also finite.

I could, after this is settled with the majority here. That all balls are forced to the left hand side.
 
  • #507
Tomaz Kristan said:
I don't care for the mass center. I care only for the mass particles.
Your paradox revolved around the fact that the center of mass of a closed system was supposedly moving. If your not going to aruge that anymore then there's not much else to discuss.

Tomaz Kristan said:
I could, after this is settled with the majority here. That all balls are forced to the left hand side.
Well I'm settled on the finite force on every individual ball part. Care to move on to the center of mass bit?
 
  • #508
> Well I'm settled on the finite force on every individual ball part.

Fine. Everybody else also?

> Your paradox revolved around the fact that the center of mass of a closed system was supposedly moving.

It can also revolves around the strange fact you admit. Only left pointed forces at t=0. A matter of choice.
 
  • #509
This is absolutely ridiculous. OMP has provided a considerable amount of mathematic proof that this mathematic problem is unsolvable, results a divergency. Yet, Tomaz, you still continue to provide an equation that is set up, but not your process for solving it. OMP, thus far, has constructed the only VALID argument between the two of you. And you are still unable to provide full and complete calculation of the force on the center of mass, which is where the core of this seeminly fake paradox lies.
 
  • #510
What is your point?

That it is all OK, if all the net forces, to every ball, are finite and left pointing, as long as the force to the mass center is divergent?

Is that your point?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
High School The M paradox
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
359
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
984
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K